EFFICENCY RATING MANUAL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2000
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: January 1, 1944
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION DIVISION
EFFICIENCY RATINGS ADMINISTRATION SECTION
EFFICIENCY RATING
MANUAL
Effective January 1, 1944
For sale by the Superintendent of 15ocuments, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. - Price 10 cents
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
Efficiency ratings are periodic evaluations of work performance
which indicate how effectively employees are performing their
assigned duties and discharging the responsibilities delegated to them.
Records of these evaluations make it possible for administrators, super-
visors, and employees to know what progress is being made in accom-
plishing desired work results. They serve as a periodic inventory
of the most important asset of an organization-its manpower.
Organizations are judged by their records of achievement. Those
who are charged with the responsibility of planning programs and
directing projects must know what skills and abilities must be applied
to accomplish the desired results. They must also know the perform-
ance that is necessary to achieve success in their undertakings. They
must be alert to the human characteristics of manpower. Praise must
be given to the worker who is leading in accomplishment, and those
who are weak must be encouraged and trained to do better. These
requirements are fundamental whether or not efficiency ratings are
used. Efficiency ratings are an aid. in carrying out these requirements.
This efficiency rating system requires that administrators and super-
visors apply the same knowledge they use in administration and
supervision-a knowledge of the work to be done, of the way the work
should be done, and of the way the work is being done, by each person
in the organization. Requirements are different in different jobs,
so different combinations of rating elements are provided. The worth
of performance is not difficult to determine because each employee's
work is measured by the requirements of his own job. The method of
preparing and reviewing ratings is adapted to the administrative plan
of the organization. As the first-line supervisor is directly in charge
of the worker, he initiates the efficiency rating. Those responsible for
reviewing the efficiency ratings are the higher administrators who
control the supervisors in their regular work operations. The final
review is by a committee representing the head of the department or
agency.
Directors of personnel are responsible for providing the organiza-
tion with manpower, with proper qualifications, in appropriate assign-
ments, and rendering effective service. They need the benefit of
current efficiency ratings to assist them in placement and training
activities and in passing upon promotions, demotions, salary advance-
ments, salary reductions, reductions in force, and dismissals for
inefficiency. Directors of personnel are therefore responsible for the
general administration of efficiency rating programs.
This efficiency rating system has been simplified, but no system will
operate itself. Its success or failure depends upon the care and atten-
tion given to its administration. If efficiency ratings are made fairly
on the basis of actual work requirements, and are discussed frankly
with employees they will bring about a better understanding between
workers and their supervisors and between supervisors and their
superiors. No one can justly complain about honest efficiency ratings,
promptly published and fairly applied. No one can defend ratings
which do not meet these tests.
5646114--44-1 I
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
Page
I
SECTION 1. Employees rated and form used-..
SECTION 2. Kinds of ratings-----_---- ---------------------------
SECTION 3. Official ratings----regular ratings, when made, and periods of
;,crvice considered --- --_ 1
SECTION 4. Official ratings--probational or trial period ratings, when
~s~a
de
and period of service considered
SECTION
.
_____- __ __--__--__ _
,
5. Official ratings---special ratings, when made, and period of
SECTION
6.
;-, rice consi_c]?rade and class.
Markings made by rating officials may be questioned for one of the
following reasons or for some other reason:
1. Disagreement with the rating official as to elements that are
pertinent to the position and therefore to be rated, or as to elements
that are especially important and therefore to be underlined.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
4 EA FICIENCY RATING MAN UAL
2, Based upon a personal knowledge of a particular employee's
pertorrrra;rce, disagreement with the evaluations made, either
because of the evaluation itself, or because consistent perform-
ance requirements for that kind and level of work were not
applied.
:3. Disagreement with the adjective rating arrived at by the
rating oflu~ia I be c Muse he funs not followed t he rating standard and
has not provided a satisfactory explanation for c eviatingg from
the standard, or because he has not, evaluated correctly and quali-
tatively the phis and minus marks in determining whether the
minus marks have been overcompensated by plus marks.
C. Whenever there are disagreements with the rating; official the
differences shocdd be discussed with him and with the inteernediate
supervisors. Every possible effort should be made to arrive at a
rating satisfactory to all. However, if an agreement with the
ratbig officio I cannot be reached, the reviewing official should record
h-is changes on the form in red ink without crossing out or eras; ii_(- the
marks of the initial rater.
1) W' lien the review of the ratings is completed and there viewing
official is confident that ratrlrg instructions and standards h._ve been
followed, the adjective efficiency rating is to be written in the blank
space provided for him. Then the reviewing official should write
legibly in ink his name, title, and the date of his signature in the
blank spaces at, the bottom of the rating forms after the words
"reviewed by," and submit the efficiency ratings to the efficiency
rating eormnitt ee.
SucTroN 10. Ktllcienoy ratiitq com !aittee--ctesigncztion.-E;rch de-
partment, independent establishment, and other agency shat", create
one or more st,urding efficiency rating committees. An efficiency rat,
ing cornmitte eshall consist of members, usually three or five in number,
designated by the head of the organization or?'other official authorized
by hint to act m such matters, such as the Director of Personnel. Each
committee should be representative of divisions or units of the organ-
ization served and should include a member engaged in personnel
adntinistrati on.
SECTION ii. Lfficiency rufnLg eom~rai.ttec-responsabiZities,-'1'}re
efficiency rating conuniticc operates in a stall' capacity for the head
of tile agency and the Director of Personnel in applying rating stand
ards uniformly to all employees in the agency consistent with the
standards of the efficiency rating system. Members of the efficiency
rating committee should study the instructions to rating- officials
(Rating Official's Guide) id to reviewing officials (Section 9 above)
and see that they are followed. Additional instructions and sugges-
(ions for the efficiency rating committee are given below:
A. Performance requirements: The efficiency rating; cornrnittee
should encourage administrative and supervisory officials after core
sultation with employees, to determine, as far as practicable, the
performance that should reasonably be required in the various kinds
-in(] levels of work for rise in rating, and to report these determina-
tions to the efficiency rating committee for its use ire the approving
of ratings.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 200'VP71AIINR,75P000500090007-35
B. Training programs : The efficiency rating committee should en-
courage and participate in training programs for rating and review-
ing officials to establish a common understanding of their rating
duties and responsibilities. The committee will need the coopera-
tion of all rating and reviewino' officials and should encourage and
participate in round-table conferences where both policy and pro-
cedure will be discussed freely and where opportunity will be
afforded for presenting questions and ideas regarding any phase of
the rating program. It will probably be worth while to discuss the
various elements of the rating form and their application to differ-
ram of training
ro
ntire
th
h
g
p
e e
out
ent types of positions. Throug
and preparing for actual rating, the primary objective-uniform
standards in rating-should be strongly emphasized both to rating
and reviewing officials.
C. Selection of pertinent and especially important elements: The
rating and reviewing officials are primarily responsible for deter-
mining the pertinent and especially important elements for each
kind and level of work. Elements to be rated should be the same
for like positions. If, however, the efficiency rating committee is
authorized to designate the elements, it shall determine the ele-
ments for each kind and level of work and have them indicated
either on the form by encircling the numbers of the pertinent ele-
ments and underlining the especially important elements in black
ink or in some other manner. However, if the rating official wants
to add or delete elements or underlinings, he shall be permitted to do
so, indicating his disagreements in red ink.
D. Advice and help : Before rating forms are distributed and
during the period of actual rating and review, the committee is to
be considered the source of information on questions of rating policy
and procedure. Members of the committee individually and col-
lectively must assume this responsibility, must keep currently in-
formed of all aspects of the program, and must assist rating and
reviewing officials in every possible way to expedite the efficiency
rating program. If any problem or question arises which the com-
mittee is not able to answer, the matter should be referred to the
Director of Personnel for his decision as promptly as possible. The
committee shall not make evaluations for rating and reviewing offi-
cials, except in an appellate capacity if authorized, but shall serve
in an advisory capacity on questions of procedure, rating standards,
and meanings of terms.
E. Review and approval of ratings :
1. Instructions to rating and reviewing officials are also ap-
plicable to the efficiency rating committee. The efficiency rating
committee shall review each official rating to make certain that
the rating is the logical result of the markings on the elements.
2. It shall study the ratings submitted by rating officials and
reviewing officials to learn whether the rating standards used
and performance requirements were uniform as far as practi-
cable. It is not desirable that the distribution of ratings in any
grade and class or group of grades and classes be made to con-
form to any predetermined statistical scale. If the committee
feels that the rating standards or performance requirements have
not been applied uniformly as far as practicable, a conference
should be held between the committee, or its representative, and
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved ForoRelease 2001/07/? }14:rRp~57 003848000500090007-3 MANUAL
the rating and revie,winrr officials concerned. Any questionable
rating shall be returned to the rating and reviewing officials for
review and possible revision in accordance with the generally
recognized standards. Every effort should be made to obtain the
cooperation oft he rating and reviewing officials.
3. If adjustments are clearlv necessary to secure fairness and
justice, and the cooper ti in of rating and reviewing officials con-
cerned in inaking revisions cannot be secured after discussion in
conference the commits c e. is authorized to adjust ratings.
4. After all ratings h.r.ve been reviewed and any necessary
rev sions have, been made, the comnrrttee shall have the date of
approval and the adjective rating to be reported to the employee
filled in on the form. ['be rata ng becomes an official record when
it is approved by the committee.
Se:c,?riON 12. 1'Iac Director of 1'ersonn.el re.~Cwn,4ibi7,ities.-'I"~~re head
of the agency rs required by law to rate the performance of employees
In accordance with the uniform efficiency rating- system. To assist him
in carrying out this responsihilit-v. Section G of Executive Order
No. 7916 of June 24. 1928, provides that the Director of Personnel
should supervise t re, funct ion of efficiency rating. This involves the
following activities:
A. Establishint7 efficiency rating policies within the framework
of the uniform efficiency rating system;
13. Seeing that efficiency rating committees are established and
that they carry out their resl:ansihilities;
C. h,ncour r-ing admix jstr,,tive :and snper?visory officials to deter--
rnine, as far is practicable, tare performance that should reasonably
be required in the various kinds and levels of work
I). Coordinating the efficiency rating program with personnel
processes, and requiring appropriate action based on efficien.,v rat-
rugs according to rules and regulations;
I+;. Coordinating and advising efficiency rating committees in their
instructional and training activities, an J in I he formulation of pat-
terns of pertinent and especially inrportaart efficiency rating ele-
ments for the various cla.ssi of positions; and providing or making
available the training and other facilities of the agency in the
execution of such programs:
1?`. E4ablrshirig controls for securing the several types of effi-
ciency rating., when due, seeing that instructions, manuals, and
other material are issued and distributed; requisitioning efficiency
rating forms and assistirrrr in the distribution to the proper officials;
and providing or arrantr in. fur adequate clerical assistance to effi-
ciency rating comnuttees;
G. Seeing that regulniinns regarding the recording of ratings.
notification to employees, 7ns1a ction of ratings by employees, and
reporting of ratings to the Civil Service Commission are carried
out, and maintaining custody of the approved efficiency ratings;
It. Admin.rsterine- any srlpl,lernerrtary "administrative-unofficial"
efficiency rating program e ' ablishe+l undor adininistrative authority
and regulation to provide r ea?cwds of perforrrrance in such cases as
when supervision changes, when employee leaves, or when ratings
are desired more frequently than once a. y car as during probational or
trial periods.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
PART II. AIDS IN EFFICIENCY RATING
ADMINISTRATION
Supplementary forms and procedures will be helpful in making
the efficiency rating program effective in some departments, agencies,
bureaus, and of ecs. Such aids should be employed to insure uni-
formity in the operation of the efficiency rating program and for the
purpose of making the efficiency rating a valuable tool in the field
of supervision. The aids outlined below have been developed by
different agencies and proved successful under conditions and circum-
stances exiisting; at the time of their use. They may be found useful
to other agencies. Many other aids might be employed under other
conditions and circumstances. No supplemental forms or procedures
should be used unless they aid in the administration of the uniform
efficiency rating program.
A. Suggested check list.-A check list is useful in helping rating
and reviewing officials to make sure that rating forms are completely
filled in before their transmittal to the efficiency rating committee.
The committee may feel that questions similar to these should be
incorporated into a memorandum to be sent to all rating and review-
ing officials.
1. Do the classification symbols and office designation show the
employee's current status?
2. Has the space at the top of the form been checked to show
whether the rating is administrative-unofficial or official, regular,
probational or trial period, or special?
3. Has the block on the right-hand side of the form been checked
to designate whether the position of the employee is or is not of
an administrative, supervisory, or planning nature?
4. Do the dates filled in at the top of the form show the exact
period of time considered in the rating?
5. Have all the especially important elements in the position been
underlined?
6. Has the administrative, supervisory, or planning employee been
rated on all elements pertinent to his position whether in italics
or not?
7. Has the "all. others" employee been rated on all pertinent ele-
ments not in italics?
8. Has the question in element 13 "Is mark based on production
records?" been answered with "Yes" or "No"?
9. Has the form been completed in ink (not in pencil) ?
10. Does the assigned adjective rating conform to the "Standard"
given on the form to be followed for consolidating the plus, minus,
and check marks?
it. Has any deviation from the "Standard" been explained on
the reverse side of the form under the signature of the official making
the deviation?
564554-44-2 7
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/QT,PI_G4-RP -~Q 000500090007-3
12. 1lave both the rating mid reviewing officials signed and dated
the Ca,ting
11. ASuggested .sclwdule for conapletin.g the regular rating program.-
it is contemplated that official regular ratings prepared as of March
31 should be completed and available for official use in connection
with administrative actions to be effective during the fiscal year begin-
ning with July 1 of the same year. Since the ratings cannot be given
official recognition until approved by the efficiency rating committee,
a schedule similar to the one given below will be of material help in
completing the regular rating program on time :
Plans for conducting the program and supplemental instruc-
tions completed.
Rating forms requisitioned, assembled, and ready for distribu-
tion to retinae officials.
Rating material distributed and meetings with rating and re-
viewing officials held.
Ratings made by rating officials and submitted to the review-
ing officials.
Review of ratings completed by reviewing officials and sub-
Initted to the efficiency rating committee.
Review of ratings accomplished by the efficiency rating com-
mittee and rating notices distributed to e iployees, and provision
made for the inspection of ratings by employees.
Report. of ratings submitted to the Civil Service Commission.
C. A plan, for conducting a meeting with rating of dais.-Everv
department and independent establishment must realize the benefits
which accrue from a program of intensive training of rating and re-
viewing officials. Direct benelits will be reaped in the form of better
informed rating officials and closer adherence to rating standards,
both of which result in an increase in the accuracy of the ratings.
There are many ways of effectively conducting highly informative
training meetings with rating officials. One plan which has been
found satisfactory and which encourages discussion is given below:
have a blank rating form enlarged by the photostatic process to an
extent where it may be easily seen by everyone present at the meeting.
Generally, an enlartrernent of 12 to 16 times the normal size of the
form is sufficient. ilount this form on a large blackboard or piece of
cardboard and place it in full view of the group.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25: CIA-RDP577-00MANUAL 3844R000500090007-3 9
Present to the group a hypothetical job description of a position
in a class familiar to all members of the group. (Clerk-Stenographers
make good examples.) Then, using this job description as a basis for
rating, summarize the performance of two fictitious employees.
Now, direct the group's attention to the process of filling in the form.
Indicate whether the ratings are Administrative-Unofficial or Offi-
cial: Regular, Probational or Trial Period, or Special. Fill in the
name, title, service and grade, bureau, etc., and check whether the
position is or is not of an administrative, supervisory, or planning
nature. Fill in the date at the top of the form and emphasize the
necessity of showing the exact period considered in the rating. The
period can be affected by the entrance-on-duty date, a change in grade
or duties, an inter- or antra-departmental transfer, or a change in
supervisors.
The next step, that of actually making the ratings, is, of course, the
most important part of the whole demonstration. Every phase of
the hypothetical performance of the two employees to be rated must
be determined in advance. When selecting the pertinent elements and
underlining those which are especially important, and marking the ele-
ments with plus, minus, and check marks, frequent reference should
be made to the Rating Official's Guide, Civil Service Commission
Form No. 3823A. Read and call attention to specific parts of the
guide and the manual.
To stimulate discussion and maintain interest, encourage the group
to discuss the factors that enter into the rating of each element. In-
ject some violations to the rating instructions into the ratings and raise
some controversial questions in order to augment the discussion. (Take
particular care, however, to see that each of these questions or viola-
tions is definitely cleared up before the meeting is over, and that no con-
fusion or misunderstanding remains in the mind of anyone present.).
In arriving at the adjective rating, refer the group to the "Standard"
on the rating form and determine which one most nearly fits the per-
formance of each hypothetical employee.
In concluding the discussion of the two ratings, check your hypo-
thetical ratings to be sure that the form is completely and accurately
filled in. The functions of the reviewing official and efficiency rating
committee should also be briefly reviewed.
D. Suggested plan for discussion of ratings with employees.-Since
efficiency ratings serve as an important factor in the consideration of
proposed personnel actions and will become a part of the permanent
records of employees, the importance of having each employee thor-
oughly understand his rating cannot be exaggerated. In fact, the
effectiveness of supervision and the success of the work program
depend upon a thorough understanding between the supervisor and
employee concerning the duties assigned, the performance require-
ments, and methods of attaining the desired performance. Frank
discussions on these subjects should be held whenever necessary in
order to develop and maintain the efficiency of every member of a
working unit. Such discussions which include a consideration of
the actual rating form will go far in achieving and cementing har-
nioriious, cooperative relations in each unit and will result in more
efficient operation of the organization.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
10 EFFICIENCY RATING MANUAL
Iu order to conduct effectively such an interview with the employee,
the supervisor must recognize certain fundamental concepts. There
is no need that the discussion be argumentative because at the outset
there may be conflicting points of view. The supervisor should not
attempt to dominate the employee by reason of his position. The
approach should be on the basis of an open-minded discussion of the
requirements of the job and how the employee can best adjust himself
in meeting these requirements. Outlined below are some suggestions
which supervisors may find helpful in discussing efficiency ratings
with their employees :
Preparing for t1w interview.
1. Review the factors which entered into your evaluation of the
employee's performance.
a. Review the rating form to recall why he was rated as he was.
b. Keep the important aspects of his job in mind.
e, Review and have available for illustration any factual data
which helped to determine the rating.
9. Organize a simple straightforward plan for conducting the
discussion.
cc.. adapt plan to personality of employer and to his point of view.
h. Consider any particular circ?nmst,ince; which affected the em-
ployee's rating.
c;. If the rating has in any way changed from the employee's last
one, be prepared to give an adequate explanation. In some cases,
if may be advisable to show the employee his previous rating; for
comparison.
3. Select a time when both you and the employee are not under
undue strain or pressure of work.
1. Provide for privacy during interview.
The irztervo?n?.
1. Put the ernployee at, ease by some friendly remarks not nccessar-
il,y about the rating to be discussed.
2. Discuss first the values of the efficiency rating, emphasizing; the
values to the employee himself, Then briefly review the definitions
of the plus, minus, and check marks.
3. Discuss the completed rat inn i'orrn with the employee.
a, Go over with the employee the evaluations which orr made
01' his peri'ormauce in each of the pertinent elements in his' position.
1r. Show him which elements were especially important in Ins
position and why lie was given the rating he received with reference
to the standard.
4, planner during interview.
a, Maintain calm and unemotional attitircle.
fi. 1)o not nut the employee on the deifensive.
c;. 't'alk in terms of the emuloyee's experience.
t/. Face the facts but show a, sincere interest in the employee's
work and his problems.
c% lie bone-4., frank, and Judicial.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/OF/ I,PCh-~7~Z-gg000500090007-311
f. Give praise where praise is warranted, and criticize straight-
forwardly and constructively so that the employee knows where he
stands.
Concluding the interview.
1. Give the employee an opportunity to speak freely, to ask ques-
tions, and to make suggestions.
a. If he has a problem and wants advice, suggest several possible
solutions.
b. Do not let the discussion become argumentative.
c. Be sure the employee has a definite understanding of the per-
formance requirements of his position.
2. Outline various methods which the employee may utilize to at-
tain self-improvement. Work out a definite time-schedule with the
employee which he agrees to follow in order to improve his efficiency.
(In cases where serious deficiencies are to be corrected, this time-
schedule should be followed up to see that definite improvement is
made in accordance with the agreement and that the matter is not per-
mitted to drift until the next regular rating date.)
3. Do not try to force the employee to agree with your evaluation of
his performance.
4. Do not divulge the ratings of other employees or discuss their
performance.
5. It may be well to make, a record of the interview for future refer-
ence or for use during the next rating period; if your impressions are
recorded immediately following the interview, the record will be more
accurate.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
Legislative and Executive Authority for the Efficiency Rating
System
A. Section 9 of the Cla.ssifiention Act, approved March 4, 1923, as
atuended, provides:
"That the Boni (now he Civil Service Commission, Sec. 505, Title
V, Part 11, of the `Economy Act,' approved June 30, 1932) shall re-
view and may revise uniform systems of efficiency ratings established
or to be established for the. various grades or classes thereof, which
ball sit, forth the degree of efficiency which shall constitute ground
fir (.r) increase in the rate of compensation for employees who have
not iutained the rnaximum rate of the class tr, which their positions
;ire allocated, (111) continuance at the existing rate of compensation
without increase or decrease, (c) decrease in the rate of compensation
for employees who at the time are above the minimum rate for the
,lass to which their positions. are allocated and (d) dismissal.
"The head of each departnierit shall rate in accordance with such
systems the efficiency of each employee under his control or direction.
The current, rat inks for each grade or class thereof shall be open to
itrspection by the representatives of the Board and by the employees
of the departinerit ender conditions to be determined by the Board
after consultation with the department heads.
"Uednctions in compensation and dismissals for inefficiency shall
he made by heads of departments in all cases ;whenever the efficiency
ratings warrant. as provided herein, subject to the approval of the
Board.
"The Board na.y require that one copy of such current ratings shall
be try:nsmift.ed to and kept on file with the Bond.."
B. ::c< t loll 3 of the lkletd-Ranispecl: Act of A ttgnst 1, 1941 (55 Stat.
914), provides:
Sa;c;ticn 9 of said Act, (Clissification Act of 1923, as amended) is
hereby amended by adclini thereto the following paragraph:
""1'lie Civil Service Commission and heads of departments are
authorized and directed to take such action as will apply the provi-
sioiis of this sect ion uniformly to all employees occupying positions
within the compensation schedtiles fixed by tliis Act as nearly as is
practicable.' "
C. Section 2 (c) of the Mead-Rarnspeck Act of August 1, 1941
5 ii Slat. 913), provides:
"'P lo term `good .is used herein shall be defined in accordance with
the ~vstenis of c lfu,iency rating established poi cant to Section 9 of
this pct (Classification Net of 1923, as anicnded)."
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/0I/?35C -u P5 GOM384FI000500090007-313
D. Section 1 (b) of Executive Order No. 8882, September 3, 1941,
provides :
"Positions within the scope of the compensation schedules fixed by
this Act (Classification Act of 1923, as amended) shall include all
permanent positions, including positions in the field services, in the
executive and legislative branches, in government-owned or govern-
ment-controlled corporations, and in the municipal government of
the District of Columbia, compensation of which has been fixed on
a per-annum basis, pursuant to the allocation of such positions to
the appropriate grade either by the Civil Service Commission or by
administrative action of the department or agency concerned, in
accordance with the compensation schedules of the Classification Act
of 1923, as amended, or the said schedules as adjusted by an authorized
differential."
E. Section 2 of Executive Order No. 8842, August 1., 1941, provides
in part :
" . all employees whose positions are classified in accordance
with the salary schedule contained in Executive Order No. 6746, who
have not attained the nnlximum rate of compensation . . . shall be
advanced in compensation . . . subject to the following conditions:
"(b) ... The term `good' shall have the meaning attributed to it
in. the system of efficiency rating approved by the Civil Service Corn-
mission for the agency concerned, and each agency affected by this
order shall maintain such a system."
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
N i'ii;n 4IATF.S CIVIL SERVICE
k`t ..s If l \ i r i'ON, 1). C.
l Im Ier 23, it) hl.
C:1?,1(A:.1AU:NB
014:PA1h'1'i\lENT ('1KCUL1\li NO. 418
t` lipcraediu~Y 1)eparl.mr iii;d Circular No. 30`2, Revised., and
t)~ hartmeiltai Circular No. 302. Supplement No. 1)
Subject: uniform Efficiency Rwing System, revision, effective Jami-
ary 1, 1941.
To 1Je uls of lievurtinents rrnd indepenrien L+'stablish.ments:
L. Deeelopm.Fe,:nt and general nature of revisions.-During the past
Iwo years, oilicials of the various departments and agencies and. the
(civil Service Commission have had all opportunity to see how the efl-i-
'eney rating system that has decal in force since March '11, 1942, and the
optional modifications to the system have worked, its values, and its
faults. As requested, suggestions and criticisms have been submitted
to the ('ilmrmseion both fnon departmental and field service employees
and officials. These have [sun given careful consideration. Possible.
rnodilieatioils auci miprovelllents have been discussed by the Council of
ersonuel t,kiintimstration and the Management-Labor Advisory Com-
mittee, arul their recxurlmendations have born received. Considering
the difTeretll experiences witil efficiency rating administration in the
various departments and agencies of the Federal government and the
dihlerent. points of view of i idi% Idual_s and groups, it is to be expected
ll;at many of the suggestiouF~ and I econ>mendations would be in conflict
and Unit those accepted nmg_hIu not he fully acceptable to every de-
partment, agerncy, group, or. inlfivnluai. lowever, the Suggestions
and recon inelufatiorrs that have been accepted represent general agrec-
u ent- There is no feeling that. with its improvements, the efiirieney
;atioz~' svutern as now revn,ed is a perfect system. It will continue
under observation and studv. and suggestion and criticisms arising
out of further experience v- ill coati i ne to be considered in accordance
with the fundamental fact t lint the system must. be adapted to existing
co ditions and developmelii 5 if it, is to be osetnl and effective.
(ieueral agreement has been reached on the following revisions which
arc, now being put into effect:
1. Standardization of rer'lriirrsmerlt for- element markings.
11,himination of requirement for less than-90-day ratings.
l lumination of numerical rating .
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001/011;~ciLq8fF Pr ,1O 8 Q00500090007-3 15
4. Elimination of the conduct report from the efficiency rating
form.
5. Modification of requirements for interim, information and pro-
bationary or trial period ratings.
6. Restatement of language in the manual for greater clarity.
7. Clarification in the manual of the functions of the Director of
Personnel in efficiency rating administration.
8. Preparation of a rating official's guide for distribution to all.
rating officials.
Matters that were considered but did not receive general acceptance
at this time related to reduction in the number of adjective ratings,
restatement of elements on the rating form with a possible reduction
in the number of elements listed, grouping of elements under major
headings, elimination of the underlining of especially important
elements, and other less drastic suggestions. These matters require
more study, and it was decided that they should not prevent the making
of the improvements in time for the next regular rating program.
2. Promulgation of revisions.-Under legislative and executive
authority and direction, the uniform efficiency rating system, described
in the Efficiency Rating Manual, Form 3823, Revised, and the Rating
Official's Guide, Form 3823A, covers all positions in the field and
departmental services which are allocated under the compensation
schedules of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, and in accord-
ance with Executive Order No. 6746. (See Sec. 9 of the Classification
Act, as amended; Sec. 3 of the Act of August 1, 1941, 55 Stat. 614;
Executive Order No. 8882 of September 3, 1941; and Executive Order
No. 8842 of August 1, 1941.)
In order to carry out these authorizations and directions more effec-
tively, particularly in the light of experience, the Civil Service Com-
mission has revised the uniform efficiency rating system and directs
that the administration of the efficiency rating program in depart-
ments and agencies shall be carried out in accordance with the system
as revised and. set forth in the Efficiency Rating Manual, Form 3823,
Revised; the Report of Efficiency Rating, Standard Form No. 51,
Revised ? and the Rating Official's Guide, Form 3823A. A copy of the
Rating official's Guide, Form 3823A, shall be given to every supervisor
who acts as a rating official. Supplementary instructions prepared by
departments and agencies shall be consistent with the approved
uniform efficiency rating system and copies shall be submitted to the
Civil Service Commission.
3. Additional regulations to be issued later.-Additional regulations
prescribing methods and procedures for (1) recording of efficiency
ratings for administrative use, (2) notification to employees of ratings,
(3) inspection of ratings by employees, and (4) reporting of ratings
to the Civil Service Commission, will be issued prior to March 31, 1944.
No supplementary instructions shall be issued by departments and
agencies concerning these matters until the uniform regulations are
promulgated.
4. Periodic salary advancements.-Section 7 of the Classification
Act, as amended by the Act of August 1, 1941, provides for successive
salary advancements based on several factors, one of which is efficiency
ratings. Ratings of "Good" permit periodic salary advancement by
successive steps up to and including the middle rate for the grade (the
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved FQRelease 2001/07/25 :CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
EFFICIENCY RATING MANUAL
fourth step in six-rate grades), and ratings of "Very Good" and
"l:xi?ellent" permit periodic salary advancement by successive steps
above the middle rate of the -?rade. This is in accordance with the
Principle that standard work performance is worth standard pay and
drat higher levels of work 1_i,riorrnance are worth higher rates of pay.
Periodic salary advancement under the law and regulations are made
by depai rtmenti and agencies without review by the Commission.
5. e5'rtiaru/ rer/uctuons, (Li n otions, or dismissals.-Section 9 of the
Classification Act, as amended, requires that "Reductions in compen-
sation and dismissals for inefficiency shall be made by heads of depart-
inents iii all ca~ s whenever the efficiency ratings warrant," subject
to the. approval of the Civil Service Commission. Such action ; shall
be taken in conformity with the rules stated below. All salary reduc-
t.ions, demotions and dismissals required under these rules shall be
reported to the Civil Service Commission and, with respect to employees
in the departmental service, shall be deferred until the Commission's
approval is formally given; except that, such reports and prior ap-
proval are not required with eespect to employees serving probational
or trial periods.
a. No administrative or unofficial efficiency rating shall be used
as a basis for taking action under these rules.
b. The rate of compensation of an employee whose official efficiency
rating is "hair" shall be reduced one salary step if his rate of
compensation is above the middle rate. If the rate of compensation
is equal to or below such middle salary rate, it shall not be subject
to reduction on that account.
Q. An ernpfo_yee whose official efficiency rating is "Unsatisfactory"
s1wil not be permitted to remain in his position. lie may be as--
to a position more nearly commensurate with his ability,
either (1) in the same line of work, in which case the position shall
be in a lower classification grade and his rate of compensation shall
not be in excess of the middle rate for such grade, or (2) in some
other line of work for which he is qualified, in which case he shall
1>e considered as having received a new appointment to the extent
that his rate of compensation shall be at the minimum rate for such
grade and lie shall begin a new probational or trial period or if
no suitable vacancy is available he shall be separated from the
service for inefficiency. A probational or trial period employee,
assigned to a position of lower classification grade, shall begin a
new probational or trial period in the new position.
d. For the purposes of the above rules, the fourth salary rate shall
he considered fire middle rate in any grade which has six salary rates.
e. Employees shall be notified of any anticipated action under
these rules in advance of the effective date of such action. Insofar
as feasible, at least thirty days' notice is recommended.
d. Contact o;1/ice in Civil Service Ci ommissio.n.-All correspondence
to the Civil Service Commission concerning the uniform efficiency
rating system should be addressed for the attention of the Efficiency
Ratings Administration Section of the Personnel Classification
Division.
7. Previous circulars and other material superseded.-Efl"ective
January 1, 1944, the Efficiency Rating Manual, Form 3823, issued
January, 1942, Departmental Circulars No. 302 (Revised) of Novem-
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For Release 2001E07/3I11P) A ?~7f,Q AR000500090007
ber 20, 1942, and No. 302, Supplement No. 1 of April 16, 1942 the
Report of Efficiency Rating Standard Form No. 51, approved Janu-
ary 5, 1942, and the List of Efficiency Ratings, Standard Form No.
52, approved January 5, 1942, are superseded.
By direction of the Commission : Very respectfully,
L. A. MOYER,
Executive Director and Chief Examiner.
Approved For Release 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
 Approved For lease 2001/07/25 : CIA-RDP57-00384R000500090007-3
EFFICIENCY RATING MANUAL
Re.nderd Perm N., It, Rn..
oval U... 1913
C. 5. 0. limo. Clr. Ne. 1te
REPORT OF
Rudest Rurwu lP.,.d
R0I].
Aoyroval exolree Mer. b0, 1616.
A OMINIBTRATI V R-UNOFFICIAL.
aRCU W 6
EFFICIENCY RATING OPFRO ATIONAI. er TRIA6PP1